Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

The gospel preached to the whole world never happened, The Desolation of Abomination standing in the Holy place never happened, the greatest tribulation before or since not applicable to 70 AD, no glorious return of Jesus, etc. That being said, I'm not necessarily interested in a defense of Preterism as much as I would like to know why you've chosen it over other eschatological views.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

The gospel preached to the whole world never happened, The Desolation of Abomination standing in the Holy place never happened, the greatest tribulation before or since not applicable to 70 AD, no glorious return of Jesus, etc. That being said, I'm not necessarily interested in a defense of Preterism as much as I would like to know why you've chosen it over other eschatological views.

Well, I won't defend it, then. I was simply observing your statement: "What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred."

In essence you are stating that you've chosen preterism, or partial preterism, because in your view it is simply less unreasonable and less incorrect than the other theories.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

The gospel preached to the whole world never happened, The Desolation of Abomination standing in the Holy place never happened, the greatest tribulation before or since not applicable to 70 AD, no glorious return of Jesus, etc. That being said, I'm not necessarily interested in a defense of Preterism as much as I would like to know why you've chosen it over other eschatological views.

Well, I won't defend it, then. I was simply observing your statement: "What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred."

In essence you are stating that you've chosen preterism, or partial preterism, because in your view it is simply less unreasonable and less incorrect than the other theories.

I think that is a fair assessment. Truth be known, when I started with this post I intended to defend Preterism over Futurism.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

The gospel preached to the whole world never happened, The Desolation of Abomination standing in the Holy place never happened, the greatest tribulation before or since not applicable to 70 AD, no glorious return of Jesus, etc. That being said, I'm not necessarily interested in a defense of Preterism as much as I would like to know why you've chosen it over other eschatological views.

Well, I won't defend it, then. I was simply observing your statement: "What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred."

In essence you are stating that you've chosen preterism, or partial preterism, because in your view it is simply less unreasonable and less incorrect than the other theories.

I think that is a fair assessment. Truth be known, when I started with this post I intended to defend Preterism over Futurism.

Well, that should be a fairly easy undertaking, but I'd imagine you'd be classified as a partial preterest (as would I). Of course, the terms are essentially meaningless anyhow, with the "meaning" arbitrarily assigned by whoever is using them.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

They trust the source of the theology, theology is of men. The Gospel is of God. As in they entrust someone else to tell them what this means and that means or is, rather than seek out the truth for themselves. Some denominations encourage the teaching that a clergy is to be close to God for you. Hence if the clergy is a hypocrite, then both are lost. But it"s ingrained in human nature, goes back to the garden, Eve didn"t trust the source of what God said, which is God. She trusted what the serpent had to say about what God said, and Adam trusted what she said and here we are, wallowing in our human nature.

It boils down to one must meet his own Maker, could be after this life or it could be during this life. And in that context, things like prophesy is understood in Christendom. It"s the advice of a converted to Christ rabbi, that biblical prophesy is understood after it has happened. Hence the meat of the NT in reference to the OT. The understanding of what was fulfilled in the OT is shown in the NT. As far as what is yet to be fulfilled, in revelations and the like, many well studied scholars have spent all their lives at it and there seems to be no clear decisive, this has happened and this will happen, mapped out. Which again either the fulfillment is required to recognize it, or the approach is all wrong.

It"s the Lord God of Israel"s Way to say what He is going to do, and the do it, but He says what He is going to do to those He has a relationship with. The shepards in the field were informed by God, the three wise men maji whatever knew the Lord Jesus was come into the world but when they informed Herod, he had to find out that no one was aware of such a thing and it was the priesthood that again were supposed to be close to God, didn"t know and had to read scripture to find out that, technically it already happened.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Which part (or which) passage prior to and including verse 34 are you claiming did not come to pass? I forgot. I know you've said, but I can't remember.

The gospel preached to the whole world never happened, The Desolation of Abomination standing in the Holy place never happened, the greatest tribulation before or since not applicable to 70 AD, no glorious return of Jesus, etc. That being said, I'm not necessarily interested in a defense of Preterism as much as I would like to know why you've chosen it over other eschatological views.

Well, I won't defend it, then. I was simply observing your statement: "What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred."

In essence you are stating that you've chosen preterism, or partial preterism, because in your view it is simply less unreasonable and less incorrect than the other theories.

I think that is a fair assessment. Truth be known, when I started with this post I intended to defend Preterism over Futurism.

Well, that should be a fairly easy undertaking, but I'd imagine you'd be classified as a partial preterest (as would I). Of course, the terms are essentially meaningless anyhow, with the "meaning" arbitrarily assigned by whoever is using them.

My defense would have been devils advocate, so classifying me as a preterist is inappropriate.

I understand you're not fond of the labels, but it was necessary to discuss the different interpretations of prophecy.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

They trust the source of the theology, theology is of men. The Gospel is of God. As in they entrust someone else to tell them what this means and that means or is, rather than seek out the truth for themselves. Some denominations encourage the teaching that a clergy is to be close to God for you. Hence if the clergy is a hypocrite, then both are lost. But it"s ingrained in human nature, goes back to the garden, Eve didn"t trust the source of what God said, which is God. She trusted what the serpent had to say about what God said, and Adam trusted what she said and here we are, wallowing in our human nature.

It boils down to one must meet his own Maker, could be after this life or it could be during this life. And in that context, things like prophesy is understood in Christendom. It"s the advice of a converted to Christ rabbi, that biblical prophesy is understood after it has happened. Hence the meat of the NT in reference to the OT. The understanding of what was fulfilled in the OT is shown in the NT. As far as what is yet to be fulfilled, in revelations and the like, many well studied scholars have spent all their lives at it and there seems to be no clear decisive, this has happened and this will happen, mapped out. Which again either the fulfillment is required to recognize it, or the approach is all wrong.

It"s the Lord God of Israel"s Way to say what He is going to do, and the do it, but He says what He is going to do to those He has a relationship with. The shepards in the field were informed by God, the three wise men maji whatever knew the Lord Jesus was come into the world but when they informed Herod, he had to find out that no one was aware of such a thing and it was the priesthood that again were supposed to be close to God, didn"t know and had to read scripture to find out that, technically it already happened.

Do you subscribe to any of the views of eschatology I mentioned above?

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

Preterism and futurism (sorta). This has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled in a similar but different manner. I think I read once that it was written ABCDEFGZGFEDCBA.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

Preterism and futurism (sorta). This has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled in a similar but different manner. I think I read once that it was written ABCDEFGZGFEDCBA.

You believe some prophecies are destined to have dual fulfillment? Does this mean you believe all prophecy has been fulfilled at least once? I hope you don't mind the questions, I'm just trying to understand.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation have been largely (or completely) fulfilled. In regards to the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24), Preterists hold that Jesus was referring to the 'generation' that he was talking to, and "all these things" mentioned throughout the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) would come to pass before the death of those alive at the time of his words. They also believe that the Olivet discourse refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. I am sympathetic to this view simply because I accept that it makes more sense for Jesus to be talking to the people who were listening to him and not to some unknown future generation. What I can't accept is that 70AD is a fulfillment of the Olivet discourse simply because it takes some mental gymnastics to interpret "all these things" to have occurred. The common exclamation is "Well, if not 70 AD, then when!? No other event even comes close". My view is that if a consistent method of interpretation is used, then 70 AD (nor any other time since the death of Jesus) fulfills the Olivet discourse. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Futurism

Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies associated with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) and Revelation are, as yet, unfulfilled. In regard to the Olivet discourse, futurists believe that "this generation" refers to the individuals who would see "the fig tree (Israel) put forth leaves". In other words, Jesus was not referring to those who were listening to his words at the time, but speaking to a generation in 1948 when Israel was re-established. (http://www.history.com...) This was the view I grew up with and that my family still holds to. Although, since a Biblical generation is 40 years, the "generation" that saw Israel become a nation has passed and this view needs updating if it hopes to remain potent. However, that may have already begun - my father (a former preacher) and, I assume, others who hold this view, believe that 'these things' will occur before all those alive in 1948 have died. I can't help but wonder how they will know exactly when this interpretation has failed. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)

Idealism

The final eschatology I would like to mention is Idealism. Idealists do not believe there is a literal/physical fulfillment of prophecy (with possible exception to the Second coming of Jesus and/or a Final judgement) and view prophecies as symbolic. The problem with idealism is that the understanding changes to reflect the times. IMO, this illustrates this method of interpretation is very subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Christian_eschatology)

Conclusion

These descriptions I have provided are not a complete representation of these views and are not meant to be. They are meant to provide a brief overview and illustration of what I see to be flaws in these views. I freely admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, and, unless participants in this thread are willing to lay out credentials for verification - they will not be considered as scholars either. (We are on equal ground) One final note, my goal is not to create animosity, but hopefully to expose more Christians to eschatological views other than their own. This is something I was completely unaware of until I was no longer a believer, and studying these views has been an eye opening experience.

I would like to know (other than being born into a view) why Christians hold one view to be more valid than another.

Preterism and futurism (sorta). This has been fulfilled and will be fulfilled in a similar but different manner. I think I read once that it was written ABCDEFGZGFEDCBA.

You believe some prophecies are destined to have dual fulfillment? Does this mean you believe all prophecy has been fulfilled at least once? I hope you don't mind the questions, I'm just trying to understand.

Well the Bible is to understood as being relevant to the people then, the people now and the people in the future. There is an understanding in every age.

View it in this way, the Church is the baptized believers in Christ. Christ identifies so closely with his people that he asked Saul why do you persecute me? In the same way, since we (Christians) are so closely ties to Jesus the life of the Church will mimic the life of Jesus. So at the end the Church will undergo the suffering of Christ. It will be abandoned by most and will be stripped and brutalized.

Additionally the Church understands itself to be the ark, outside of which all are lost.

So how is this to be understood? Christians believe themselves to be the spiritual successors to the Jews. So the end to the Old Testament covenant is a precursor type to the end of the world.

"Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

So you can see that the apostles are asking a bunch of questions. These may not all apply to both the end of the temple and the end of the world - even if the Jewish apostles would expect the two to coincide.

So the end of the age would occur within the lives of the apostles, but also at a time that that the Father has yet to reveal. (There are 3 ages, the age of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - we are living in the last of these).

So like Moses was a prefigurement of Jesus, the end of the Temple is a prefigurement of the end of the world.

A little rambling, but I think that more or less gives some context as to why.